ML19253C878
| ML19253C878 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1979 |
| From: | Gray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253C880 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912120302 | |
| Download: ML19253C878 (5) | |
Text
.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING LICENSING BOARD ON BLOCK WALL REACTION FORCE PROBLEM
~
In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company, et al.
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
Docket No. 50-344 (Control Building)
On November 13, 1979, the NRC Staff forwarded to the Licensing Board and parties in the referenced proceeding information concerning certain mortared, masonry block walls (non-shear walls) at the Trojan facility which were found to be inade-quate to resist earthquake generated reaction forces from equipment or piping attached to such walls. The Staff indicated that when additional information was received with regard to this problem, it would be forwarded to the Licensing Board.
On November 19, 1979, Portland General Electric Company (PGE) submitted Supple-1 (copy attached) to LER 79-15 on this problem.
Information in Supplement ment 1 as well as in a letter of the same date from PGE's D. Broehl to NRC's A.
Schwencer Tcopy attached) indicates that PGE has evaluated all single block and mortared double block masonry walls at the facility which support safety-related piping (Supplement 1 to LER 79-15, p. 2).
The seismic loads considered in these evaluations included the walls' own inertial loads as well as the reaction loads imparted by all safety and non-safety-related piping, equipment and cable trays attached to the walls (Supplement 1 to LER 79-15, p. 2).
For walls in the Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building Complex, the seismic loading condition was based either on the factored 0.15g OBE or the 0.25g SSE, whichever was con-trolling (Supplement 1 to LER 79-15, p. 5).
Based on these evaluations, PGE has identified 87 pipe supports on single block and mortared double block walls that required modification because of the reaction force problem as of November 19,1979 (Supplement 1 to LER 79-15, p. 6).
Of these 87, four have a bearing on the Control Building proceeding as follows:
(1) PGE represents that, based on this evaluation, only one masonry block wall included in the STARDYNE analysis for interim opera-tion was found to have significant reaction forces which had not been properly accounted for.
This wall, which was not a shear wall, was a 14-inch thick mortared double block wall at elevation 61' in the Fuel Building.
It was included in the SI/.RDYNE analysis for interim operation because it does act to carry sotse seismic loads although PGE states that the conclusions with re. gard to seismic capacity of the complex would be unaltered if this wall were ignored.
Based on PGE's evaluation, three of the six Seismic Category I supports attached to this wall had to be modified to assure that reaction forces from the supports would not damage the wall or the supports during an earthquake (November 19, 1979 letter Broehl to Schwencer, pp.1-2).
1541 314
. n eo%e
(2) PGE's evaluation showed that one pipe support that was modified prior to interim operation pursuant to license condition 2.C.(10).c (this license condition, imposed by the Licensing Board in its initial decision, required modification of certain piping systems prior
- s to interim operation to qualify such systems for the floor response spectra of the as-built Control-Auxiliary-Fuel Building Complex) required further modification because of the reaction force pro-blem (November 19, 1979 letter from Broehl to Schwencer, p.2).
The evaluations performed to date have been directed to single block and mortared double block walls which are lightly reinforced.
These were the types of walls identified as potentially having the reaction force problem because of their light reinforcement and the use of mortar. PCE states that they are characteris-tically different than the inherently high capacity structures such as composite shear walls, concrete walls, concrete floor slabs and structural steel. Never-theless, PGE will conduct an evaluation of composite shear walls, concrete walls, concrete floor slabs and structural steel to assure that no problems with reaction forces from piping and equipment attached to these structures exist (Supplement 1 to LER 79-15, pp. 7-8 and Attachement 6).
The information available to the Staff to date on this reaction force problem is that presented in the Board Notification document distributed on November 13, 1979 and the information provided in the attachments hereto.
For the Licensing Board's convenience, an outline of these atttachments is as follows:
(1) Letter from PCE's D. Broehl to NRC's A. Schwencer, dated November 19, 1979, indicating PGE's evalaution of the relationship of the reaction force problem to the Control Building proceeding.
(2) Letter from PGE's D. Broehl to NRC's R. H. Engelken, dated November 19, 1979, transmitting Supplement 1 to LER 79-15.
An outline of Supplement 1 to LER 79-15 is as follows:
1.
Introduction II.
Loading Combinations for Masonry Walls During Normal Operation and During Accident and SSE III. Proposed Review of Other Support Structures Sample Calculations Additional Justification for Use of Factor 1.5 Times UBC Working Stress Allowables Description of Other Structural Elements (Reinforced Concrete Walls, Composite Walls, Concrete Floor Slabs, Steel Beams)
Criteria for Evaluation of Structural Members to Resist Pipe Loads 1541 315
Tension and Shear Transfer (in the double block walls)
Confirmatory Review Program for Other Structures l
(i.e. for Composite Walls, Concrete Walls, Floor Slabs and Structural Steel)
(3) IE Information Notice No. 79-28, dated November 16, 1979 on the reaction force problem (sent to all licensees with operating reactors).
The Staff has requested a meeting with PGE, in Bethesda, to discuss the reaction force problem and the status of PGE's evaluation of it, the criteria used by PCE in its evaluation, and PGE's plan to confirm that the problem does not extend to composite shear walls, concrete walls, floor slabs and structural steel. That meeting is scheduled for December 6, 1979.
The results of the meeting in the form of a meeting summary will be distributed to the Licensing Board and parties as will any additional information of which the Staff becomes aware. The Trojan facility is currently in the cold shutdown condition and has been shut down since October 12, 1979.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an immediate action letter to PGE on October 22, 1979 (attached to Board Notifica-tion document of November 13, 1979) requring that the facility remain shut down until the reaction force problem is resolved, necessary corrective actions are taken and,the completion of such actions is confirmed to the NRC.
1541 316
s b
(";ITED STATES OF A'::RICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:0:ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the >beter of
)
)
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL. )
Docket No.
50-344
)
(Control Building)
(Trojan Nuclear Plant)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR TROJAN CONTROL BUILDING LICENSING BOARD ON BLOCK WALL REACTION FORCE PROBLEM" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 30th day of November, 1979:
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- Richard M. Sandvik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Counsel for Oregon Dept. of Washington, DC 20555 Energy 500 Pacific Building Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean 520 S.W. Yamhill Division of Engineering, Portland, OR 97204 Architecture & Technology Oklahoma State University Maurice Axelrad, Esq.
Stillwater, OK 74074 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad & Toll Dr. Hugh C. Paxton Suite 1214 1229 41st Street 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Los Alamos, NM 87544 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. John A. Kullberg Mr. David B. McCoy Route One 348 Hussey Lane Box 250Q Grants Pass, OR 97526 Sauvie Island, OR 97231 William W. Kinsey Mr. Eugene Rosolie 1002 N.E. Holladay Coalition for Safe Power Portland, OR 97232 215 SE 9th Avenue Portland, OR 97214 Ms. Nina Bell 728 S.E. 26th Ronald W. Johnson, Esq.
Portland, OR 97214 Corporate Attorney Portland General Electric Company 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, OR 97204
)54\\
3\\7
.,.[
Dr. W. Reed Johnson
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atenic Safety,nd Licensing Appeal Panel
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.*
Panel (5)*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section (5)*
Office of the Secretary Dr. John H. Buck
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Washington, DC 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 wah f. Gm, J seph Gray
/
/
./cunsg/R.
l for NRC Staff 1541 318
.